Why something instead of nothing?

[SciWriter]

CC: I wrote this long ago…

THE HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE

When a tree falls in the forest
And there’s no one around to hear it,
Does it make a sound?

No, for there is no ear to turn
The sound waves into sound.

Nor is there a smell, for there is no nose
For the odorous molecules to attach to,
Nor has it any color, for there is
No retina to decode the light frequencies.

What does it look like, then?

It doesn’t look like anything,
For there is no brain to put it all together
By detecting form, color, texture,
Size, taste, smell, or vision.

Since the entropy of a black hole is known
To depend on the surface area of
The event horizon and NOT on its volume,
Then our third dimension MIGHT BE a projection.

A projected illusion, as in a hologram,
May still be used as it were really there
Since we can make sense of it, so to speak,
But, in truth, the third dimension may not exist.

Thus, apparently separate particles,
Like created photon pairs,
Copy the other when one is changed,
Because, in truth, they are still
The same thing in the projector room.

If the universe is holographic,
Then the tree in the forest,
Whether seen or not,
Is, at heart, an interference pattern
Brought to life only when we tune it in.

This is the mystery of the realness
Of sleeping dreams revealed:
We tune in to the interference patterns,
Whether awake or asleep,
To bring alive the reality projected.

Everything connects to everything else
Through overlapping interference patterns,
And so nothing is so separate at all, as it seems,
But is one large all-encompassing whole.

Memory, too, seems to be holographic,
Residing everywhere in the brain,
Every piece associated with others related,
Instantly broadcasting all the connections.

Every part of a hologram contains the whole,
The whole universe contained within
A grain of sand, all eternity within a moment,
The universe rumbling when an electron vibrates.

We are part and parcel of everything—
We are the cosmos; we are life; we are love;
We are all that is; we are the creator
Of the dance as well as the dancer.

Whether the past is recorded and accessible
As part of the holographic whole is not known
Or whether the other two dimensions are
Projected, as well, but perhaps we shall see.

This then is the secret of the universe,
Knowing of that which underlies all reality:
Fundamental, absolute, indestructible,
Omnipresent, indeterminate, but all pervasive.

Why absolute and fundamental?

Because it is made of one piece—itself,
And therefore indestructible, and eternal, too,
And makes up all that there is, everywhere.​

 

[Rav]

True, but the question itself seems to beg the answer that there is something external that could give it a reason for existing. I don't know if there can be a internal reason for existing, I guess if the reason was the first to exist, but then how could it be the reason for existence if it came to exist along with it? It is itself a existence in need of a reason.

Perhaps the question "what is the reason for existence" isn't even a legitimate question. It's either that, or an infinite regression of first causes.

It depends, I guess for the universe to be contained in a singularity, it should have defined quantities, at least after the singularity is "disturbed" or however the Big Bang happened. I find it unimaginable that a infinite amount of things can be contained in a finite size. Wouldn't that mean that there would be a infinite amount of things everywhere? Or is the infinite amount contained in some "hotspots" in the universe?

There is also the possibility that the pre big bang "singularity" wasn't a finite entity, or at least that concepts such as "quantity" might not be applicable to such a state. Note that the metric expansion of the universe is perfectly consistent with an initial incredibly dense state with an infinite volume (volume is not synonymous with space in this case, of course).

Perhaps you are suggesting that the universe isn't the final answer and that there is a vast void out there that perhaps can hold other universes? I guess that there is a possibility that everything is infinite, and that the universe is simply a "inflation" of some corner in that vast void (as I think inflation theory goes). I don't know if it explains more to make what it should explain bigger and even more vast though. Perhaps it's simply a way to avoid the question, rather than answering it?

Invoking a multiverse in order to explain existence itself is just another example of pushing the question back one level and forgetting about it. I don't do that.

 

[C C]

CC: I wrote this long ago…

THE HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE

When a tree falls in the forest
And there’s no one around to hear it,
Does it make a sound?

No, for there is no ear to turn
The sound waves into sound.

Nor is there a smell, for there is no nose
For the odorous molecules to attach to,
Nor has it any color, for there is
No retina to decode the light frequencies.

What does it look like, then?

It doesn’t look like anything,
For there is no brain to put it all together
By detecting form, color, texture,
Size, taste, smell, or vision.

Since the entropy of a black hole is known
To depend on the surface area of
The event horizon and NOT on its volume,
Then our third dimension MIGHT BE a projection.

A projected illusion, as in a hologram,
May still be used as it were really there
Since we can make sense of it, so to speak,
But, in truth, the third dimension may not exist.

Thus, apparently separate particles,
Like created photon pairs,
Copy the other when one is changed,
Because, in truth, they are still
The same thing in the projector room.

If the universe is holographic,
Then the tree in the forest,
Whether seen or not,
Is, at heart, an interference pattern
Brought to life only when we tune it in.

This is the mystery of the realness
Of sleeping dreams revealed:
We tune in to the interference patterns,
Whether awake or asleep,
To bring alive the reality projected.

Everything connects to everything else
Through overlapping interference patterns,
And so nothing is so separate at all, as it seems,
But is one large all-encompassing whole.

Memory, too, seems to be holographic,
Residing everywhere in the brain,
Every piece associated with others related,
Instantly broadcasting all the connections.

Every part of a hologram contains the whole,
The whole universe contained within
A grain of sand, all eternity within a moment,
The universe rumbling when an electron vibrates.

We are part and parcel of everything—
We are the cosmos; we are life; we are love;
We are all that is; we are the creator
Of the dance as well as the dancer.

Whether the past is recorded and accessible
As part of the holographic whole is not known
Or whether the other two dimensions are
Projected, as well, but perhaps we shall see.

This then is the secret of the universe,
Knowing of that which underlies all reality:
Fundamental, absolute, indestructible,
Omnipresent, indeterminate, but all pervasive.

Why absolute and fundamental?

Because it is made of one piece—itself,
And therefore indestructible, and eternal, too,
And makes up all that there is, everywhere.​

I enjoyed that; delightfully retrospective. I say the latter because reading it conjured up memories of Pribram's and Bohm's publications, along with that popular synoptic account that Talbot put out a couple of decades ago. I was a bit stunned during this millennium when theoretical physics publicly unveiled or jumped on its own version of the holographic bandwagon. I guess because the critical pooh-poohing years before from the community that "this is just philosophical ramblings and New Ager stuff" made it seem like a pretty unlikely turnabout.

 

[Alan McDougall]

Something instead of nothing?

Why is there something instead of nothing? The interesting conclusion of this ultimate puzzle is that, we can be sure of, it that at "least something exists". There is a Universe, we see people, and things, and light, and while we may debate what it means, how it came into being, and how it works, we can be sure that there is at least `something'.

Many physicists search for the most elementary laws of physics, and believe that a law is more likely to be true, when it is simpler, more elementary. Some think that at some moment, humans will understand how the Universe and everything works, and, even more, that we find out why the Universe is necessarily as it is. I cannot believe that we will find “A fact of Everything” scientifically; I believe humans cannot ever give a satisfactory scientifically answer to this final most profound of questions, ultimate of all questions. “Why is there something instead of nothing?”

By nothing, I mean the un-existence of everything or the total absence of existence. No people, no earth, no milky way, no universe, no laws of nature, no space, no time a total non-existence of everything. A mind-boggling, brain-, brain-numbing and brain- twisting overwhelming concept, terrifying, frightening, too awful to contemplate and impossible think about, without going insane and totally beyond understanding of any human genius. Making a mathematical model of nothing is actually easy. (Take an empty set, with no operations on it, and nothing else.)

Nevertheless, one thing we can be sure of: this nothing is not correct: we do not have “nothing”, but definite and absolutely do indeed have ‘SOMETHING’. Remember by absolute nothingness I don’t mean just an empty void left but the absence of the infinite void as well.

This shows that the simplest model is not always the correct one. The universe is almost infinitely complex and to me this points to the simple logic that it is the creation by an infinite, intelligent power. Nothing is the very most basic of all concepts and if there were ever a nothing, there would be no creator, of course.

Some people may argue that the universe was created in the Big Bang ( but whom and what pressed the button of the big bang in the first place, so to speak?) , and that positive matter and positive energy are actually negated by the simultaneous creation of negative matter and negative energy. However, this doesn't answer the other question, where do matter, energy and laws of physics then come from in the first place?

Does this question have an answer? If something exists because it either was a modification of something or else, Something or Somebody else created it, then what caused that to exist? It seems that our logic is unable to deal with the question; indeed, I think the question shows there is a limit to our understanding of things by the very best minds of the human race. There are simply mysteries out there that will never ever be solved by mere mortal man.

Maybe the real question should be,"Why is there Something"?

Alan

 

[gmilam]

Does this question have an answer?

I don't know. But I do know that if there were nothing, then we wouldn't be here to ask it.

 

[Cyperium]

The 'paradox' could be that something and nothing are perceived to be radically and irreconcilably different. If not different, then the universe had no origin from nothingness—it is just another expression of it.

Yes, we are thinking along the same lines. But does everything cancel? Isn't there a fixed amount of energy that can neither be created or destroyed? Why is there a certain distribution of everything if it is a expression of nothing, that doesn't have any certain qualities at all?

It must be a expression of whatever origin it has, so if the origin is "nothing" then it must be a expression of 'nothing'. Anything else would imply a impossibility, that the universe is somehow different from the source of it. That what was contained in the source must always be what is contained in the product, even if it is a different expression of it.

So, I agree, but we still have to think about why 'nothing' is expressed this way. Also, why it is expressed at all.

If the universe had no origin then why is it here instead of nothing? How is existence derived from nonexistence? This is the prime 'paradox'. No wonder everyone went off to do something else, yet, there must be a solution, for the universe is indeed here.

Something has to give, and that we know, for there are no true paradoxes, so, really, this makes us closer to the answer than ever; in fact, we hold it in our hand, but we don't know which one it is.

The universe is indeed here, that's the fascinating part. I think that there must be an answer.

Perhaps the question "what is the reason for existence" isn't even a legitimate question. It's either that, or an infinite regression of first causes.

I think that it is a legitimate question, it's just very hard for us to see the possible answers to it. I'm finding it equally hard to understand how something can happen without reason. If existence has a origin, then I believe that there must be a reason. Yet it seems impossible that something without a prior cause would have a reason.

I must say I'm moving towards the thought that existence is eternal, all laws might not be eternal, but I think that there is some law governing existence (and possibilities) that has always been, and that all finite things come from.

There is also the possibility that the pre big bang "singularity" wasn't a finite entity, or at least that concepts such as "quantity" might not be applicable to such a state. Note that the metric expansion of the universe is perfectly consistent with an initial incredibly dense state with an infinite volume (volume is not synonymous with space in this case, of course).

The thing I'm having trouble with is how a infinite entity can give rise to a finite universe. I would guess that either the universe is infinite in some way, or a infinite quality of the singularity just vanished or was represented in some other way. I don't think some infinite quality could just vanish (I call it quality, because it is undefined for all I know - if it is volume then so be it, but if it isn't equal to what we would call a volume (a space) then it is just another word for the undefined), so we are left with that the infinite quality must be represented in some other way, or "left behind".

Invoking a multiverse in order to explain existence itself is just another example of pushing the question back one level and forgetting about it. I don't do that.

Yes, I thought so too.

 

[C C]

Why something instead of nothing?

Okay, shoot me for not replying to your original post at the start.

Plato's qualification for existing was power, or power to affect or influence, which is applicable to the cause/reason this question seeks for "something being the case instead of nothing". Thus, this classic question cuts off its own legs out of the starting gate by positing that there's an affective, existing something more primary than nothing. What "why" underlying-ly refers to (a cause or reason) really wouldn't need an additional ability for enabling existence or preventing non-existence, since it would already instantiate "something" by virtue of its own being. (At the very least, a concept or law of causality may be implied as more fundamental than nothing here, assumed by the question to possess "power" if it leads to the question being asked in the first place.)

why: (conj.) for what reason; because of which; (adv.) for what reason?; for what purpose?; (noun) reason; for what reason?; for what purpose? --Dictionary

Plato, via one of his characters: "My notion would be, that anything which possesses any sort of power to affect another, or to be affected by another, if only for a single moment, however trifling the cause and however slight the effect, has real existence; and I hold that the definition of being is simply power." --SOPHIST, trans. by Benjamin Jowett

Second... And this really should have been first so as to not even bother with the above. Such a total absence ("nothing") would mean absence of time and cause and effect relations, as well as any existential properties granted to laws and principles, logic, etc. "Nothing" before "something" is just that: There's no "before" to have to take into account as preceding existence. And the latter doesn't require a cause because if causality is that primary, supreme, and forceful, then it would be itself the "something", a be-ing, a power, which makes "nothing" impossible (just by providing existence with a member).

 

[Rav]

The thing I'm having trouble with is how a infinite entity can give rise to a finite universe. I would guess that either the universe is infinite in some way, or a infinite quality of the singularity just vanished or was represented in some other way. I don't think some infinite quality could just vanish (I call it quality, because it is undefined for all I know - if it is volume then so be it, but if it isn't equal to what we would call a volume (a space) then it is just another word for the undefined), so we are left with that the infinite quality must be represented in some other way, or "left behind".

Why do you assume that the universe itself is not infinite in some sense? I don't know that it is, but I do know that we can't rule it out.

 

[SciWriter]

If existence has to be, then there was no choice, which is in accord with a prime mover having no inputs to it. It has no time and no space, but can change into those, at least as within it, as long as those somehow go away, overall, or are shown to be changeable.

As again, it has no impetus or direction from any inputs but what it already is, it then does something of only itself, such as its becoming our universe, obviously, and perhaps also does anything and everything, since there would not be any directive, such as to just produce quarks and leptons in pairs, unless that change in form was of a default that could only be that way.

If the universe were to be shown to sum to zero, that would settle the question, for the universe is still one and the same with the prime mover, as there would be no other sources.

It would also help if we see that lots of things come to be, but decay instantly or are inert, not doing anything.

 

[Cyperium]

Why do you assume that the universe itself is not infinite in some sense? I don't know that it is, but I do know that we can't rule it out.

I did state that as a possibility, as a general rule I think that everything has to be preserved, and that whatever cause the universe could have, the universe is in some way a preservation of that cause.

That said, I don't know of any real infinities and they are usually a sign that the theory is wrong. But I wouldn't rule it out either. But if the singularity is infinite then I think we should find some signs of that. Everything seem to scale down to the planck length, so I don't expect any infinities there, and at least the visible universe is said to have expanded from that singularity into measurable size. I guess that space itself could have expanded to infinity without the photons and other matter doing the same, but I'm not too sure of it.

 

[SciWriter]

The universe is seen to have a symmetry in its elementary particle pairs, so this is a clue to something deeper. There was, then, again, no option, for there not to be symmetry, but what is the default, forced condition for symmetry, that is, what makes for symmetric necessity? Is it the potential for a largest versus a smallest?

 

[SciWriter]

To be 'infinite' is to be 'what cannot be attained', so it's not a real extent or amount.

 

[Cyperium]

If existence has to be, then there was no choice, which is in accord with a prime mover having no inputs to it. It has no time and no space, but can change into those, at least as within it, as long as those somehow go away, overall, or are shown to be changeable.

As again, it has no impetus or direction from any inputs but what it already is, it then does something of only itself, such as its becoming our universe, obviously, and perhaps also does anything and everything, since there would not be any directive, such as to just produce quarks and leptons in pairs, unless that change in form was of a default that could only be that way.

If the universe were to be shown to sum to zero, that would settle the question, for the universe is still one and the same with the prime mover, as there would be no other sources.

Stephen Hawkings have a theory that gravity itself is the counter balance of matter, so that everything equals to zero.

It would also help if we see that lots of things come to be, but decay instantly or are inert, not doing anything.

We do have virtual particles, but even though they are popularly said to come from "nothing" they are actually coming from fields that under certain conditions (or rather uncertain conditions) have the right energy during a very short time to represent a particle pair, this is because there is a uncertainty relation to energy and time, where the energy could be very large (larger than is contained in the field) if the time it is that large is very short, the larger the energy, the less time it can stay that way.

 

[SciWriter]

True, we can't say that virtual particles come from nothing, but for sure there is a symmetry to them, meaning that the prime mover must be symmetric, for some reason, even if the reason is what has to be. What would make for a forced symmetry, of a default condition?

 

[SciWriter]

Stephen Hawkings have a theory that gravity itself is the counter balance of matter, so that everything equals to zero.

That could do it, if shown as zero, and the symmetry part seems for sure, not requiring a zero indication. Matter has a positive kinetic energy and gravity has a negative potential energy.

I'm ready to declare symmetry as an ultimate necessity.

 

[SciWriter]

The universe is seen to have a symmetry in its elementary particle pairs, so this is a clue to something deeper. There was, then, again, no option, for there not to be symmetry, but what is the default, forced condition for symmetry, that is, what makes for symmetric necessity? Is it the potential for a largest versus a smallest?

It’s not only that infinity cannot be attained, nor infinitesimal infinity, but it also seems that complete solidity cannot be (or last), if a singularity tries to be, as well as nothing not being able to be (or last). The same for eternities not being able to be past- or future-complete. All of the above could be that which forces a finite realm as a mid-point, in the ‘now’… as if Largest (or infinity) times Smallest (or zero or infinitesimal) must equal One, as a necessary, default, finite unity.

 

[Cyperium]

That could do it, if shown as zero, and the symmetry part seems for sure, not requiring a zero indication. Matter has a positive kinetic energy and gravity has a negative potential energy.

I'm ready to declare symmetry as an ultimate necessity.

His theory isn't proven though, and we still have to explain why the negative and positive was seperated in the first place. Then we have anti-matter which I'm not sure how it fits with Hawkings theory, one big problem is that matter and anti-matter should have been created equally, if following complete symmetry. I think that gravity works the same for both matter and anti-matter, so gravity could account for this assymetry. But if nothing is the cause, then it shouldn't have had any preferences to begin with and no reason for gravity as a substitute for the matter/anti-matter assymetry.

My guess is that 'nothing' isn't enough to account for this cause matter/anti-matter should have sufficed equally well and there would be no need for gravity. Then again, that would probably mean that the universe would still be 'nothing'. Perhaps somewhere along the way gravity was a natural consequence though and the assymetry between matter and anti-matter could have been the solution to this.

 

[SciWriter]

His theory isn't proven though, and we still have to explain why the negative and positive was seperated in the first place. Then we have anti-matter which I'm not sure how it fits with Hawkings theory, one big problem is that matter and anti-matter should have been created equally, if following complete symmetry. I think that gravity works the same for both matter and anti-matter, so gravity could account for this assymetry. But if nothing is the cause, then it shouldn't have had any preferences to begin with and no reason for gravity as a substitute for the matter/anti-matter assymetry.

In short, by counting photons, we find that for every 10 billion matter/anti-matter annihilations, early on, there was one matter particle left over, so this is but a very slight break of symmetry, but enough that most or all of the anti-matter is gone. It is not necessarily what shouldn’t have happened, though, for during expansion, and especially during inflation, there is no equilibrium, as a lot of stuff is separated very quickly in a really short time.

As such, too, the virtual particles of the pairs were separated so quickly that they couldn’t get back together to ‘go back in’. Could be something like that for gravity, too.

Symmetry is an inescapable conclusion, and if super-partners are found, then nature will have used all possible symmetries, as all the rest are already employed.

Matter and anti-matter, space versus time, polarity of charge, mass versus gravity, and others all play a part, as exposing symmetry; so, the ultimate answer is to be found in why symmetry absolutely has to be, no other option possible, and, of course, a causeless prime mover can’t have any, unless it has all of them, as equal, and this is Symmetry.

 

[SciWriter]

Another symmetry (part 1) is that the two and only two stable matter particles in free space are charged, the electron and the proton (and their anti-particles), oppositely charged, with no cases of any uncharged ones, for the neutron decays within minutes. Part 2 is that there is only one uncharged energy particle, the photon, as neutral (or having both positive and negative in peace), with no cases of any charged energy particles.

It looks like there are only two ways for oppositely charged matter particles to be stable in free space, which is itself another balance from symmetry. Any given charged matter particle, then, represents half of totality; whereas the one uncharged energy particle, the photon, seems to represent all of totality.

 

[SciWriter]

General note:

We see that sizes can be ordered, even if the singularity size was not relative to anything. The singularity was able to go from small to very large, from single to multiple form, from hardly anywhere to as far as we can see, in close to no time. Apparently, the formation of spacetime made for this. In a way, we are now seeing what the singularity was made of, as like expanded by a magnification. If there were quantum fluctuations, they are now written large across the night sky.